FCC is led by a former lobbyist; the lobbyists are led by former FCC leaders.

Washington, DC, has long had a revolving door through which government officials exit to become lobbyists, and lobbyists enter to become government officials.

Regulators being led by former executives from the industries they're supposed to regulate and industry groups being led by their former regulators sounds like it should be the stuff of fiction. But the Federal Communications Commission has once again proven that this phenomenon is quite real.

Further Reading

The CTIA Wireless Association today announced that Meredith Attwell Baker—a former FCC Commissioner and former Comcast employee—will become its president and CEO on June 2, replacing Steve Largent, a former member of Congress (and former NFL player).

Largent himself became the cellular lobby's leader when he replaced Tom Wheeler—who is now the chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is also the former president and CEO of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association), which… wait for it… is now led by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

To sum up, the top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.

There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.

"Meredith is a perfect fit to lead CTIA going forward given her vast experience with the telecommunications industry," Dan Mead, chairman of CTIA and CEO of Verizon Wireless, said in today's announcement. "We're excited to welcome her back to the association."

Baker faces restrictions on lobbying FCC commissioners during the remainder of the Obama administration but can still lobby members of Congress.

Wheeler, who became chairman last year, was president and CEO of the CTIA from 1992 to 2004 and president and CEO of the NCTA from 1979 to 1984. Along the way, he also worked as a venture capitalist; started companies that offer cable, wireless, and video communications services; and wrote a book on President Lincoln's use of the telegraph during the Civil War.

The revolving door is open to both Democrats and Republicans. While Baker and Powell are Republicans, Wheeler is a Democrat.

A lone wolf

Although it seems like the FCC's revolving door leads only to industry lobbyist groups, there are other paths. Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner from the Democratic Party between 2001 to 2011, was the only member to vote against the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, and he is now a self-described public interest advocate who leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.

While there can be good people who go through the revolving door, it's bound to lead to worse policy decisions, Copps told Ars today.

"When people come and go in the industry, they have all these contacts and better access than other people have and more opportunity for their voices to be heard and their influence to be deployed," he said. "I think that only enhances the power of the special interest at the expense of the public interest."

The revolving door "isn't peculiar to the Federal Communications Commission. It's kind of everywhere you look. Probably it's one reason why a lot of people have diminished trust or diminished faith in government."

Media consolidation is "wreaking havoc on our news and information infrastructure, on our communications ecosystem, and I don't think there is a greater issue facing the country right now," Copps said. "I don't think there's any possibility of reform and change until you have a media that actually tells what's going on in the country, a decentralized local media, a media that has real investigative reporting resources, and I think you don't have democracy without media democracy."

Among current FCC commissioners, Republican Ajit Pai previously served as associate general counsel for Verizon and held numerous government positions before becoming a commissioner in 2012. Commissioner Michael O'Reilly, in office since 2013, was previously a policy advisor in the Office of the Senate Republican Whip.

Democrat Mignon Clyburn, in office since 2009, was previously a newspaper publisher and then chairwoman of South Carolina's Public Service Commission. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, appointed in 2012, previously practiced communications law and held positions with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Rosenworcel was also a legal advisor to Copps when he was on the commission.

69 Reader Comments

In some professions, like accounting, the standards bodies can specify that a member not only must avoid a conflict of interest, but must also avoid the <i>appearance</i> of a conflict of interest. That would be the solution here.

That is true.

For the professional engineers, accountants and lawyers on the FCC staff, such ethical considerations would apply. I don't know about economists, but if they have a professional association, I assume they have certain standards of ethical conduct as well.

I don't know about federal agencies, but at the state level, state employees cannot lobby the legislature. I assume the same holds in D.C. but I can't say for sure.

There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.

Quote:

Democrat Mignon Clyburn, in office since 2009, was previously a newspaper publisher and then chairwoman of South Carolina's Public Service Commission. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, appointed in 2012, previously practiced communications law and held positions with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Rosenworcel was also a legal advisor to Copps when he was on the commission.

When buying and selling are regulated, the first thing to be bought and sold are the regulators.

When Network Neutrality was first being discussed, many people pointed this out. The Net Neutrality rules were going to be enforced by the FCC, which was going to be staffed and run by industry executives and lobbyists. At this point it's better to have no Net Neutrality rules at all than something that will be bent and shaped by shills and insiders.

No matter how cynical one is about the Federal government, you're never cynical enough.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Their "industry experience" don't have come from industry associations or lobbyist organizations. People coming out of those places have a very different set of priorities than someone plucked straight from the engineering ranks and their tech speak would be just fine.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Someone jumping to industry can't do anywhere near as bad for the public interest as someone jumping from industry. Wheeler is a big mistake.

I have to wonder how much of this is typical high level nepotism, where the leader chooses his successor on the way out, shockingly from his small pool of friends, and that person does the same on their way out and so on. In a relatively specialized field like this, the pool is pretty small so you have the same faces rotating around the different positions on a regular basis.

Obama could fix this, but he probably doesn't know anybody who would be qualified for the position, and is just going on the recommendation of the previous chair.

It wasn't mentioned in the article, but Mignon Clyburn is the daughter of Representative James Clyburn (D-SC).

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Someone jumping to industry can't do anywhere near as bad for the public interest as someone jumping from industry. Wheeler is a big mistake.

That's nonsense. You're arguing that the trough on one side of the pen is more moral than the other trough on the other side of the pen.

People with power will leverage that power. It's the same reason you don't routinely run processes in Unix with root privileges.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Someone jumping to industry can't do anywhere near as bad for the public interest as someone jumping from industry. Wheeler is a big mistake.

Actually I'd reason it's probably worse to go in the private to public direction

This creates a fairly direct incentive to "make friends" with said industry to secure one's future financial prospects.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Someone jumping to industry can't do anywhere near as bad for the public interest as someone jumping from industry. Wheeler is a big mistake.

That's nonsense. You're arguing that the trough on one side of the pen is more moral than the other trough on the other side of the pen.

People with power will leverage that power. It's the same reason you don't routinely run processes in Unix with root privileges.

I don't see how ex FCC leaders still have "root privileges" with the federal regulatory agency. Ex FCC leaders are useful to industry organizations because, IMHO, they intimately know the rules/regulations they have put in place and the many loopholes that can be taken advantage of. But that's it.

Somebody coming from industry will already have a set of marching orders and getting "root privileges" to write rules/regulations to satisfy those priorities and only need to pay lip-service to the public interest. This is exactly what we have with Tom Wheeler.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

If you raise the income levels you end up attracting everybody who ONLY cares about money. That would mean going from a few corrupt apples at the top, to 100% corruption all the way through.

Money attracts those who love money above all else, and those that are the most corruptable.

With regards to the feckless FCC that just can't seem to figure out how to really do Net Neutrality, now it all makes sense.

It's not that they're feckless-- they're negligent toward the American people, or, for lack of better word, malicious.

I've known (and currently know) some FCC employees. I found them all to be honest, hard working government employees doing their best to represent the "public interest". I've never met any FCC Commissioners, but I have no reason to believe they would do otherwise.

It's worth remembering that representing the "public interest" doesn't necessarily mean always doing what consumers want. Regulators have to balance the interests of consumers, providers, shareholders, bond and lien holders, employees, equipment suppliers, competitors, etc. It's not an easy balancing act, but they do the best they can do given their limited authority.

If consumers had their way, broadband would be 1G or more and it would be free. But obviously no entity (even the government) can operate like that and the FCC would never order an ISP to do that. They have to consider what's best for consumers against what's best for ISPs and strike a balance.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

If you raise the income levels you end up attracting everybody who ONLY cares about money. That would mean going from a few corrupt apples at the top, to 100% corruption all the way through.

Money attracts those who love money above all else, and those that are the most corruptable.

A love of money is precisely what I would seek to exploit because you know who loves money... E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E

Or damn well near enough. Those rare exceptions can give it away to charity if they like, or whatever they feel like. They probably aren't interested in thankless government work anyways.

Back in the real world you want well motivated and effective individuals you need to pay them well. Otherwise they have a strong incentive to either just go elsewhere or worse still... stick around and give a crappy level of effort.

And you want loyalty the surest way is to buy it for yourself. People that love money are going to want a sure thing, so you'll run up the bidding nicely on anyone seeking to corrupt your employees by increasing the personal risk.

Right now working for government is akin to masochism, its no wonder results are sub-par and most people are either not the most effective you can get because they can be bought so cheaply and/or don't have better prospects... or are in it for the power they can wield and just going to make the money later.

I'm not supposing a panacea, but I'd at least like to run up the bidding on corrupting my officials to respectable levels.

(You don't think this country wasn't founded to protect a landed aristocracy's money do you? Any of the Founders talked about being selfless, its because they intended to restrict power to those wealthy enough to not be easily tempted and while doing some stuff pro bono)

With regards to the feckless FCC that just can't seem to figure out how to really do Net Neutrality, now it all makes sense.

It's not that they're feckless-- they're negligent toward the American people, or, for lack of better word, malicious.

I've known (and currently know) some FCC employees. I found them all to be honest, hard working government employees doing their best to represent the "public interest". I've never met any FCC Commissioners, but I have no reason to believe they would do otherwise.

It's worth remembering that representing the "public interest" doesn't necessarily mean always doing what consumers want. Regulators have to balance the interests of consumers, providers, shareholders, bond and lien holders, employees, equipment suppliers, competitors, etc. It's not an easy balancing act, but they do the best they can do given their limited authority.

I think that the most troubling, and perhaps most insidious, part of the revolving door is that it sets the framework of expectations, ideas, methods, and compromises that are on the table and acceptable. There doesn't need to be obvious (or even subtle) corruption for this limitation on points of view to be a problem. From this starting point, it follows that it's largely the 'revolving' part of 'revolving door' that's the problem. Having a limited pool of candidates limits expertise, and knowledge of the field, but worse, it limits one's universe of acceptable possibilities to those that are shared by that pool. If that pool is largely corporate executives, or even corporate executives and professional bureaucrats, then it's possible for certain perspectives to be ignored accidentally.

Obviously, this doesn't mean accepting any sort of mob rule, nor does it imply that people who know nothing about telecommunications technology or policy should be appointed simply in misguided pursuit of balance of ideas. It's a very difficult problem, as you brought up in your original post here. OTOH, it's clear that there is a perception that the regulators are routinely, and deliberately, ignoring significant public interests (e.g. the public interest that might be well served by declaring ISP infrastructure to be subject to common carriage regulation).

With regards to the feckless FCC that just can't seem to figure out how to really do Net Neutrality, now it all makes sense.

It's not that they're feckless-- they're negligent toward the American people, or, for lack of better word, malicious.

I've known (and currently know) some FCC employees. I found them all to be honest, hard working government employees doing their best to represent the "public interest". I've never met any FCC Commissioners, but I have no reason to believe they would do otherwise.

It's worth remembering that representing the "public interest" doesn't necessarily mean always doing what consumers want. Regulators have to balance the interests of consumers, providers, shareholders, bond and lien holders, employees, equipment suppliers, competitors, etc. It's not an easy balancing act, but they do the best they can do given their limited authority.

If consumers had their way, broadband would be 1G or more and it would be free. But obviously no entity (even the government) can operate like that and the FCC would never order an ISP to do that. They have to consider what's best for consumers against what's best for ISPs and strike a balance.

They have done a really bad job & the balance is so off that most of America has slipped off of the edge...... If you hadn't noticed.

With regards to the feckless FCC that just can't seem to figure out how to really do Net Neutrality, now it all makes sense.

It's not that they're feckless-- they're negligent toward the American people, or, for lack of better word, malicious.

I've known (and currently know) some FCC employees. I found them all to be honest, hard working government employees doing their best to represent the "public interest". I've never met any FCC Commissioners, but I have no reason to believe they would do otherwise.

It's worth remembering that representing the "public interest" doesn't necessarily mean always doing what consumers want. Regulators have to balance the interests of consumers, providers, shareholders, bond and lien holders, employees, equipment suppliers, competitors, etc. It's not an easy balancing act, but they do the best they can do given their limited authority.

If consumers had their way, broadband would be 1G or more and it would be free. But obviously no entity (even the government) can operate like that and the FCC would never order an ISP to do that. They have to consider what's best for consumers against what's best for ISPs and strike a balance.

They have done a really bad job & the balance is so off that most of America has slipped off of the edge...... If you hadn't noticed.

I forgot to add, the FCC must also balance the interests of Congress and the courts.

That's a lot of masters to try and keep happy. Given their NN rules are currently 0-2 in the courts, they really don't want to go 0-3 which is why they are trying to be very careful this go-round.

Consumers may not be happy with the latest proposal (which no one has yet seen, but which everyone nonetheless feels free to opine upon as if they knew the proposed rules inside and out), but I think the FCC really is trying to write something that will withstand judicial review.

With regards to the feckless FCC that just can't seem to figure out how to really do Net Neutrality, now it all makes sense.

It's not that they're feckless-- they're negligent toward the American people, or, for lack of better word, malicious.

I've known (and currently know) some FCC employees. I found them all to be honest, hard working government employees doing their best to represent the "public interest". I've never met any FCC Commissioners, but I have no reason to believe they would do otherwise.

It's worth remembering that representing the "public interest" doesn't necessarily mean always doing what consumers want. Regulators have to balance the interests of consumers, providers, shareholders, bond and lien holders, employees, equipment suppliers, competitors, etc. It's not an easy balancing act, but they do the best they can do given their limited authority.

If consumers had their way, broadband would be 1G or more and it would be free. But obviously no entity (even the government) can operate like that and the FCC would never order an ISP to do that. They have to consider what's best for consumers against what's best for ISPs and strike a balance.

They have done a really bad job & the balance is so off that most of America has slipped off of the edge...... If you hadn't noticed.

I forgot to add, the FCC must also balance the interests of Congress and the courts.

That's a lot of masters to try and keep happy. Given their NN rules are currently 0-2 in the courts, they really don't want to go 0-3 which is why they are trying to be very careful this go-round.

Consumers may not be happy with the latest proposal (which no one has yet seen, but which everyone nonetheless feels free to opine upon as if they knew the proposed rules inside and out), but I think the FCC really is trying to write something that will withstand judicial review.

This is as ridiculous as pointing out that technically the FDA has to pay attention to the Judiciary and Congress. Yes, in the sense that if there is legislation or a precedent set applying to a legislation they need to worry about how to enforce those laws that's true. Otherwise they shouldn't give a crap what either has to say.

So true. In the internet age, we basically do have a decentralized media, yet somehow most people still get their news from the same old places (or not at all).

Twitter isn't a news source, and that's the problem. The internet has HURT not helped media. How many online-only sources of news employ on the ground reporters throughout the US? The fall of "legacy" media was the best thing that could happen to "the machine" as it's so nicely put. The big media corporations have absolutely 0 incentive to call out the government, and the online-only options don't have the resources, or quite frankly the financial incentives to do so.

Assuming we shut the revolving door, where would government agencies get their staff? I guess you could hire recent college graduates who have no industry experience (or taint) whatsoever.

But would you really want them going up against seasoned industry professionals who can use tech-speak to tie them up in knots? The benefit of having industry experience within an agency is that they speak the lingo, and will be able to recognize bullsh*t when they hear it.

On the outgoing side, it sounds great in theory to prevent a former government employee from working in an industry he or she formerly regulated. But if you did that, I think that would shut off the incoming pipeline, because industry salaries are generally higher than government salaries.

I don't know the answer, other than tough ethics laws. But for those who propose to close the door entirely, I ask: where will government agencies get the staff and expertise they need, if not from the entities they regulate?

Internal to the regulatory body. The FCC is not just a few people, they have a large staff at multiple levels. So they pickup fresh out of college grads to do the grunt work, and those people progress upwards. Along the way they learn the industry, but in an adversarial context. The internal system should reiterate the position of each member as being an important part of controlling the excesses of the industry.

The need then is to incentivize staying inside instead of jumping to industry. Renumeration needs to be as good or better than equivalent industry positions. And there needs to be a good way of dealing with outgoing leadership, I would recommend a generous severance package with a binding agreement to not work in the related industries for a period of no less than 5 years, to give time for a distancing of the person from the body. Or perhaps somehow tying pension eligibility to future employment (i.e. being employed for an industry lobbying group would prevent them from receiving any government pension.)

Those things cost money, and we're not talking about just the FCC, we're talking about every agency. "You get the government you pay for". I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I think in the real world government salaries will never equal industry salaries.

I sometimes get to thinking it would probably help if government salaries were a lot higher. Make the career of "bureaucrat" one of respect and aspiration (also high professionalism like a doctor or lawyer) that attracts talented people for more then the under-the-table/post-service benefits like these revolving door schemes.

Course both Right and Left would hate and despise this idea.

If you raise the income levels you end up attracting everybody who ONLY cares about money. That would mean going from a few corrupt apples at the top, to 100% corruption all the way through.

Money attracts those who love money above all else, and those that are the most corruptable.

A love of money is precisely what I would seek to exploit because you know who loves money... E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E

If you truly believe that, explain why people are so bad at selecting the educations that pay the best, and that those who do select those educations commonly associated with wealth tend to have an overweight of sociopaths? Note I come from a country where education is free, and while some of those educations that leed to high paying jobs are attractive, they are generally not among the most popular careers people choose. Most people choose careers based on what they think they want to do, or what they think everybody else want them to do.

With regards to the feckless FCC that just can't seem to figure out how to really do Net Neutrality, now it all makes sense.

It's not that they're feckless-- they're negligent toward the American people, or, for lack of better word, malicious.

I've known (and currently know) some FCC employees. I found them all to be honest, hard working government employees doing their best to represent the "public interest". I've never met any FCC Commissioners, but I have no reason to believe they would do otherwise.

It's worth remembering that representing the "public interest" doesn't necessarily mean always doing what consumers want. Regulators have to balance the interests of consumers, providers, shareholders, bond and lien holders, employees, equipment suppliers, competitors, etc. It's not an easy balancing act, but they do the best they can do given their limited authority.

If consumers had their way, broadband would be 1G or more and it would be free. But obviously no entity (even the government) can operate like that and the FCC would never order an ISP to do that. They have to consider what's best for consumers against what's best for ISPs and strike a balance.

They have done a really bad job & the balance is so off that most of America has slipped off of the edge...... If you hadn't noticed.

I forgot to add, the FCC must also balance the interests of Congress and the courts.

That's a lot of masters to try and keep happy. Given their NN rules are currently 0-2 in the courts, they really don't want to go 0-3 which is why they are trying to be very careful this go-round.

Consumers may not be happy with the latest proposal (which no one has yet seen, but which everyone nonetheless feels free to opine upon as if they knew the proposed rules inside and out), but I think the FCC really is trying to write something that will withstand judicial review.

This is as ridiculous as pointing out that technically the FDA has to pay attention to the Judiciary and Congress. Yes, in the sense that if there is legislation or a precedent set applying to a legislation they need to worry about how to enforce those laws that's true. Otherwise they shouldn't give a crap what either has to say.

That may be true in your world, but here "In The Real World", independent agencies have to cater to their Congressional masters in each party, and executive agencies have to be concerned about what the President thinks. We live in a political world. like it or not.

There is a plan to end the corruption, its going to take citizens forcing the issue. the press and the candidates will not talk about it. http://anticorruptionact.org/

Normally against advertising in forum posts, but just skimming this seems like what is needed to start addressing the issue. I am skeptical of getting the sheep behind this though.

I think the "advertising" is relevant in response to the comments of "there's no way to fix this".

There is a way, but its going to take enough people caring about it. The good news is, reforms like the Anticorruption Act are almost universally supported by the people. Its not a party line issue. Democrats and Republicans hate lobbyists and what they are doing to our system. Voters from both parties feel like their agenda is being thwarted by big money. Getting people to agree is easy. Getting people to care enough to get involved and push it as a political issue in elections is the hard part.

Provision 3 of the Anticorruption Act relates directly to this article.

"Prevent job offers as bribes

Close the “revolving door” where elected representatives and senior staff sell off their legislative power for high-paying jobs. Stop them from negotiating jobs while in office and, once they leave, bar them from all lobbying activity for 5 years."